My proposal for Penn State's punishment and a request for yours

I know this violates the “one thread per day on Penn State” idea, but I’m honestly interested in where the broader MGoBlog community stands on this. Plus, if we can have four threads/day on a video game, I think we can have a couple on the biggest college football scandal in recent memory.

I haven’t seen this proposed, but here’s what I would do:

Probation, monitoring, demanded apologies, etc., and a one-year ban on playing college football… effective in 2018.

My arguments for the 2018 ban:

1. It’s a real punishment. Missing a year of college football would hurt, and on top of that, recruits over the next several years would have to commit knowing that there’s one year in which they couldn’t play. Recruiting surely would suffer for the next few years. Plus, there something appealing about a crime-punishment parallel in which the PSU leadership let horrible things linger for a long time so the punishment lingers for a long time as well.

2. It enables the Penn State players, who knew and did nothing wrong, to finish their careers at Penn State without a poorly targeted punishment that hits them more forcefully than anyone else. This punishment hits the institution more broadly. Future recruits who know about the 2018 ban and commit anyway are punished, but they know what they’re getting into beforehand.

3. It gives everyone time to plan for this. The conference and Penn State’s out-of-conference opponents get extra time for scheduling, local businesses get time to anticipate a one-year loss in game day revenue, etc.

4. It’s better than a lot of the alternatives. Scholarship reductions don’t seem appropriate to me, because that’s a strange penalty given the wrongdoing. I don’t like the idea of removing Penn State from the Big Ten, because it’d be a massive pain that would be extremely harmful to a lot of innocent people. I think an SMU-style death penalty is too much. At the same time, the cover-up here directly benefited the football program (relative to what would have happened if this story came out), so I think it’s entirely appropriate to issue punishments that affect Penn State on the field.

So anyway, that’s my idea. I’d be interested in thoughts on this and on where you all stand more generally.

Why punish anyone when you can start a new bogus charity to help kids, utilizing taxes on Penn State football tickets? Just ask Nick Saban how its done: link

Then when the new charity commits a mortal sin or two, send the remaining funds to your favorite religious tax-evading non-profit in order to avoid having to satisfy expected liability judgments to the victims: link

I actually disagree with that. I think we'd be surprised by the number of (mostly local) kids who would commit anyway because they love the school and want to rally behind it. They'd just use that as a redshirt year or something. Plus, if you're a good recruit (say Big Ten level but not typical Penn State level) and you suddenly have a chance to play at Penn State because some other kids are passing on it, I think that you'd seriously considering going.

Maybe local kids who love PSU would still commit, but many of those would be kids who typically have no business on a Big 10 roster. Your major talent would not want to mess with this. I agree with the above post that this would destroy the program for several years. Not saying this is good or bad/appropriate or not--just saying that I think it would be devastating for PSU.

This would destroy the program for at least a decade, maybe forever. The time it took Michigan Basketball to become good again would be nothing on this.

The next five years would be a wash, especially since Penn State is already in serious rebuild mode. Then the death penalty year. Then at least four years to get things back on their feet. In the meantime, there is no guarantee that the fans won't simply stop buying tickets for a dying program and good coaches won't shun the job as poison.

Frankly, it's entirely possible that PSU never truly recovers even without the death penalty. If O'Brien turns out to be good, they have a chance, but if he doesn't...

Oh, it would definitely hurt, but that's partly the point. I just don't think they'd have Akron-level talent. I think they'd have Purdue/Illinois-level talent.

I have a broader view, which might be wrong, that historical football powers are extremely perserverant with this kind of stuff. No one expected Penn State or USC to recruit like they have this year, but they're doing it. If that kind of thing happened at NC State or Iowa State, I think you'd see a much steeper drop off from their typical recruiting classes to their post-scandal ones.

In fact, I remember hearing a lot of people say that Michigan Basketball recruiting was hurt for years from the fact that it took the NCAA years to fully investigate and then come to a decision on the punishment.

into a saintly figure. The same press that presented the program as wholesome. The same press that turned a deaf ear to rumors, that did less investigative work than was done when Michigan stretched too much, and in at least one case, ignored a direct suggestion that the program wasn't what it was made out to be, right? Yes, by all means let them have the moral high ground.

Saban actually was quoted as suggesting something along these lines. (Not that I usually agree with him). He suggested a certain percentage of revenue from all sports at PSU be considered a tax for the crimes and be set aside to go to charity supporting victims of abuse. Might be the wisest thing he as ever suggested. Nothing you do to the football program will take away the pain of the victims. So you might as well try to get something good out of it. Punishing current players (which is what the NCAA typically does) is never fair to those kids who had nothing to do with the scandal.

I think this, or a version of this, is the best idea; if you kill the football program you kill the revenue that will pay out all these lawsuits they're going to lose. Better to keep it running, reserve a small amount for scholarships for the players or whatever, and pay the profits to the victims.

If I were a victim and I were able to negotiate a settlement that gave me a percentage of football revenues for, say, 10 or 20 years, that would be pretty good.

PSU is a state agency, so I assume that when they lose those suits the state general fund will have to come up with any $ beyond what would be available from PSU's budget in that year. Obviously the state would be on the hook for more if PSU athletic revenue is diverted elsewhere, but the plaintiffs will get paid in any case unless I'm missing something.

My only concern with your idea is that it would punish every other sport at PSU because they are so reliant on football money to fund operations. The school would have to either dig into its endowment/find alternative means for funding (which may be impossible) or cut/demote some programs. That doesn't seem fair to other sports that had absolutely nothing to do with the football program or what went on there.

But it would be up to the PSU BOT to either cut certain programs (and the corresponding amount of male or female programs) or use their endowment to fund those programs until the athletic department became self-sufficient again. Endowments themselves are peculiar in that they really only exist to be large sums of money, which bring prestige to the University by virtue of the committments (faculty, facilities, etc.) the University can make due to the size of the endowment. In reality, the endowment isn't used for any of those things but rather is invested in for-profit enterprises (PE Firms, mututal funds, hedge funds, etc.) while not paying taxes on its profits (whole other issue, IMO). The groups that benefit from the endowment are the individuals in charge of the money, which at PSU would be the BOT and at UM the Regents (I believe), the investment office at the school and the various private, for-profit, investment firms that invest the money on their behalf. If the school wants to build a building or fund a program, rather than use the endowment, it sells the name to a wealthy donor. See the Ross School of Business. At Harvard they can't build enough to satisy naming demands of alumni and non-alumni alike. The point is, if PSU is willing to sacrifice some of it's prestige to fund money losing sports, I think that's a small price to pay given the circumstances. If they don't want to, I suppose that's another type of prestige they're sacrificing but completely up to them.

PSU needs to aviod civil trials, pay the victims a more than fair sum of money, and encourage a federal law that severly puniches everyone in education that does not notify the police (not their boss) when they are told of these types of allegations.

As for footbal punishment, I don't know. The OP's idea sounds logical. Maybe make it 2014 and allow current students to transfer freely?

Possibly next year as well. Afterwards, I would like to see someone from the conference take a trustee type role over Penn State's athletic department for a set amount of time, during which time they understand they're on double secret conference probation.

This trustee will work with PSU to change the culture within the program, have some significant power regarding institutional control, Cleary Act compliance, ect. and submit reports to the CoC/P. If there are satisfactory results the trustee will disappear and PSU can move on from this as a member in good standing.

While I understand the arguments about current players losing out with this season and maybe next, I think it's worse to see that football take the field in the fall. It seems distasteful and callous, IMO.

We bring you to Michigan to take care of Michigan. Your job is to protect that block M.
-Carol Hutchins

Disgraceful, yes. But this would be an overreaction. Most of the insitution had nothing to do with this. Punish those involved (put them in jail for all I care), but don't punish every student/athlete/coach/professor/administrator that works for the university.

Sometimes you don't get a second chance. This is one of them. Boot them. I don't want to be reminded of the rythmic slapping everytime I look at a PSU football team uniform and I certainly don't want some transcendant season where they rise above it all. Fuck them.

It's not entirely about football. PSU has 28 other varsity sports, many of which rely on the football team to survive. You kick out PSU, or the Death Penalty, and you're essentially giving the middle finger to those sports as well. And don't tell me PSU will be fine as an Independent, since they've done it before. The current landscape makes it almost impossible to survive as an independent without certain factors that PSU doesn't meet

Most schools can't fund their other sports through football. Just because Penn State has had that luxury doesn't mean they can't adapt. Maybe they will have to cut back. Maybe their alums and boosters will cover the expenses. Maybe they can pay student fees like most places. Wasn't a big part of their problem that the football program was too important? That was true in part, because it was easiest, not because it was right.

This cover-up ran from school administration, athletic department administration, head football coach and campus police department. This was not merely a football issue, it was the institution. The entire place should be shut down....they knowingly ran a rape room on campus and actively covered it up for a decade +. Shut it down! This is lack of institutional control and if the Institution cannot protect children on their campus, they shouldn't have a campus. I really don't care about the collateral damage that involves anyone representing PSU, if a man is guilty of rape and is sentenced to 30 years in prison, don't you think his children will suffer? Those he is responsible for, out of no fault of their own? If the program gets nuked, it is not the NCAA to blame, it is PSU Administration

Personally, if I was a student there, I'm OUT! I don't want Pennsylvania State University on my Diploma.

the rioting of the students, the stubborn refusal to remove the statue, that whole culture needs to be eradicated from the Bi1G. I'd take Pitt or MD in a heartbeat over PSU right now. I live in FL and it's much easier to find a flight to go see UM in Pitt or College Park, and much safer to attend the game. PSU is unsafe for visiting fans at night games. Not so anywhere else in the B1G. For all these reasons i say get thee gone. we are better off without them.

Bowl ban for 4 years and lose 5 scholarships for 5 years. This was about the football program and it needs to feel the punishment. In all cases, innocents are impacted by NCAA sanctions. That is life, get over it Penn State. This will impact Penn State for as long as the kids were impacted by Sandusky.

Your comments on this are more thoughtful than the ones I just responded to below. If you get a second, I'd be interested in your reactions to those (on punishing both institutions and individuals because of incentive problems).

If that's the argument you're going to use, I think we need to be prepared to do away with all NCAA program punishments, since it applies equally well to Penn State, Michigan basketball, USC and Reggie Bush, ect.

Maybe that's a good idea, but beside the tools the NCAA has at it's disposal (death penalty down to making sure a janitor signs a form acknowledging he committed a secondary violation) I'd be interested in how punishment can be enacted for rule breaking, as a practical matter, without inflicting collateral damage.

We bring you to Michigan to take care of Michigan. Your job is to protect that block M.
-Carol Hutchins

Another thing that doesn't get brought up. What about business' and stadium workers? Their only crime was getting a PSU job or owning a business near State College. We take away football and we're also punishing them

Anyone who makes the argument about "collateral damage" and punishing the folks that did nothing wrong must then defend the arguement that the death penalty should never be applied ever and most NCAA punishments (ie: bowl bans, loss of scholarships, etc) shouldnt be handed out as both have collateral damage. Any punishment to a school has collateral damage. Should Sandusky not go to jail because he is the bread winner for his family. What about his poor wife. Who will support her? I say tough shit. Football is the reason these crimes were allowed to go on for so long. I truly believe the culture at PSU needs to change and the only way to do that is to take away what is obvioulsy their number one priority. I do feel sorry for those that will be affected, but the crimes are so egregious and to try and pity a fan base and community who continue to defend Paterno is laughable. Like a previous poster stated, most D-I and every DII-III school do not have the massive cash influx that PSU does, yet they still field teams with student athletes who travel, train and compete at the best of their ability.

Bowl bans and loss of scholarships has no effect on stadium workers and local business'. A Death Penalty goes far beyond just punishing the team or the institution, and that's one of the reasons why the NCAA has been relucant to issue one again.

While I'm sure PSU could manage a few varsity sports, let's be real here. A lot of them would simply be cut. When we're talking about reducing scholarships the only people who are punished are the football players, not the Women's Tennis team.

And you still didn't answer about stadium workers? So we just tell them, "Yeah even though it was just 4 assholes in charge of this, you're the ones getting bent over, because you got a job at PSU. You should have known better"

But the punishment must be a deterrent. Lots of Ohio fans are giddy that they have Urban Meyer and Tressel gone and all it cost the was a bowl game for 2012 season and some changes to the historical records log. So, their punishment is not sufficient. And letting PSU go on without a punishment would also not be a deterrent. JoePa also controlled discipline for his players, not an impartial way to handle such problems. He became more lenient as he had some poor seasons. His 19 years in the conference got him tied for fourth with Northwestern. Had PSU played a top 10 team routinely, he never would have the all time wins record. Lucky that e controlled scheduling for so many years.

Just so we're clear, the perpetrators are going to jail, I'm sure donations to the school will take a big hit, they will have to pay out huge amounts of money for the lawsuits, and their name has been dragged through the mud.

That is all deterrance. In a hypothetical situation down the road where administrators are faced with the choice to report a crime or cover it up, the NCAA Death Penalty will not be a significant factor in the decision making process.

(Scene:in the University of Texas Athletic Director's Office)

UT AD DeLoss Dodds: "Well, Greg Robinson is a good guy, won us a national title as the defensive coordiantor, we should try to cover up his latest killing spree"

Random Flunky: "But, think about Penn State! They got the Death Penalty! THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO PLAY FOOTBALL FOR A YEAR!"

UT AD DD: "Well in that case turn him in. The threat of jail time for myself and the reputation of the university don't mean anything next to losing Longhorn Football for one whole year."

Penn State will get sued off by the victims. They will likely win based on the conclusions of the Freeh report. The main perpetrators are in jail, soon to be in jail, or dead. Your solution put into other terms is like after WW2 was won to go back and nuke Tokyo in 1950 just because their leadership and culture had perpetuated atrocities. Who wins from that scenario?

PSU no longer has a clean name, the "Grand Experiment" has been debunked, and its surely going to lose a ton of money based on the lawsuits and most likely a much reduced rate of donations to the school. The NCAA has no role coming in after the fact and passing down judgment based on moral outrage.

Individuals guilty of wrongdoing need to be punished for what they do, but so do the institutions where it happens. Even after Ed Martin died, Steve Fisher was in San Diego, and our players had left Ann Arbor, it made sense that Michigan would have to pay. (Obviously, I think Fisher should have paid much more than he did, but that's for another day.)

Otherwise, there would be little disincentive for an institution to hire a coach who seems dirty. Hell, hire John Calipari, close your eyes while he does what he does, and then fire him when that dirty stuff comes out so that your institution doesn't get punished. I agree with you that the punishment targeting needs to be done carefully, but your idea isn't the right way to approach it.

Oh, I completely agree that the NCAA is awful at punishing the people who actually commit the crimes. If I were Mark Emmert, that might be the first thing I'd try to change. John Calipari has no business coaching NCAA basketball right now.

In a world in which that were perfectly done, I also agree that the institutional penalties wouldn't need to be as severe. But I still think you'd want them. You don't want to give people incentives to look the other way. In fact, you want to give people an incentive to actively keep an eye on things - even if it means that they might see some bad stuff - to keep some of the ugliness out of NCAA sports.

Plus, I think that a lot of coaches are genuinely loyal to their schools, and they'd be more inclined to do bad things if they knew that the school wouldn't be punished. I know you're an MSU guy, but stick with me on this example. I'm extremely confident that Brady Hoke isn't going to do anything that gets Michigan in serious trouble. Mostly, that's because of his nature (from all reports and acquaintances), but it's also because I think it would genuinely eat him up if he knew that he harmed the Univeristy of Michigan. The same probably goes for Paterno at Penn State, Izzo at MSU, etc.

If we take Ohio State as an example. There was what appears to be a deliberate failure in compliance. The AD who gave a negative review for Tressel on compliance was replaced with one who saw no need to continue written reviews. The compliance department was part of the AD with no independence. While only players and the coach were caught breaking rules, one could at least argue that many others were involved in looking the other way. This is, and should be, a big deal to the NCAA, as they rely on schools to moniter themselves.

Looking at Penn State, it's clear that a major part of the problem was that the football coach was the most powerful man on campus and answered to no one. That wasn't his fault and it wasn't the fault of one or two administrators either. His power was widely known, but it doesn't seem that anyone did anything about it, probably because he had the support of the larger community.When an institution lets that happen, they should share in the blame.

It's pointless to take about punishing players or coaches that have moved on. The NCAA simply doesn't have that kind of power and they lack any leverage to get it. The idea that the NCAA could somehow place barriers to future employment for players that violated their rules is preposterous.

But as it stands, there are no incentives - everyone else suffers while the guilty go on to other jobs. Everything re: punishment is turned on its head.

You've completely missed the relevant incentive for schools. They are expected to ensure compliance with the rules. Schools that are lax in their compliance procedures can expect to get hit harder. Schools with well run compliance departments catch most problems and typically avoid NCAA penalties for themselves.

For all of this time (even while stirring up some outrage by people that have misread my comments), I have maintained that only punishing the school by kicking them out of the Big 10 or suspending their football program would be inappropriate and an insult to the victims. This is because we again are making the same mistake that Penn State is making - thinking that the best way to hurt them is by cutting football. We are placing unnecessary importance on a game, just like they did. Calling a just punishment on their university with simply football sanctions would be at best hyprocritical, as it shows that the NCAA also shares the belief that football is more important than the law.

I agree with what you have written here and perhaps this is the most obvious case of loss of institutional control. But don't you think that the university should face primarily legal issues that involve fixing a broken system? In other words, of course hit them for loss of institutional control and all other NCAA penalties for faulty athletic departments while preserving the rights of the football players and current coaching staff that took part in no wrong, but also hit them mostly for breaking the law?

If the Big Ten kicks out Penn State it will be directed at the institution as a whole, much more so than at the football program. It does seem that most NCAA penalties would be directed at football, you have a point there. On the other hand, no other sport had a coach involved. If there are penalties, I wouldn't be surprised to see school-wide probation.

I agree that Penn State should mainly suffer legal penalties. I don't think the NCAA should concern themselves with their legal proceedings, except as a source of information. The NCAA should pursue PSU for breaking their own rules, if they have. I don't think the filing or outcome of the upcoming civil and criminal cases should be relevant to NCAA sanctions.

not allowing them to have an army or navy of any size? And also commencing an occupation and signing treaties allowing for armed forces from outside powers being allowed to stay in Japan long after the war ended?

We're not talking about killing anyone here, we're talking about punishing a program for acts committed by the program. All of which are backed up by "we'll kick you out of our club if you don't feel like complying", not any coercive force.

We bring you to Michigan to take care of Michigan. Your job is to protect that block M.
-Carol Hutchins

I use that as an example of "if you're going to punish them why wait 5 years to drop the hammer and let them quiver in fear of your mighty moral hand". Obviously there are people in favor of the death penalty and even more, and that's fine. If you want all of this stuff to happen just do it now and get it over with.

Having the punishment be administered by the B1G or NCAA is just hypocritical. There's no indication that anybody broke NCAA rules. They broke laws and there's already a system out there to make sure that PSU and the individuals are punished - both civil and criminal court. The NCAA, quite frankly, has no jurisdictional presence here. I don't see them punishing Missouri for Gary Pinkel's DUI, or Pitt for hiring Mike Haywood who beat his wife. I don't see them stepping in when a team beats up students at a potluck or when an UGA's athletic director is cheating on his wife or when a football team racks up 10+ arrests in 2 years.

The NCAA doesn't do anything because it doesn't, and shouldn't, have any powers here. If this scandal happens in the academic world, say, Mary Sue Coleman and the DPS chief have been covering up the fact that Ralph Williams is serial killer does the AAU and CIC say FU Michigan, you're no longer in the club? They're going to punish current/future Michigan researchers, professors, and students because the people at the very top perpetuated a coverup that 99.99% of people would have never suspected? (except for me, I'm onto you, Ralph). If you think that yes, Michigan should be kicked out, then I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.

I certainly agree with you - but let me share the opposing point of view.

The opposing point of view would say that since the head of the athletic department, the football coach, the president of the university, and the head of campus police were involved, and they "represent the university" that people who have no connection to the crimes should be punished, while the people that the perpetrators ACTUALLY represented should be unpunished.

The truth is that the athletic department did in fact commit NCAA violations with a loss of institutional control. This should be punished. But the most egregious *football* violation was simply that - loss of institutional control. None of the current football players were paid to play because of child abuse from the former DC, nor were any victories the direct result of the child abuse. This is of course in opposition to say, Ohio State, where victories were obtained directly by ineligible players (and these players were paid directly). It can be argued that if Paterno had turned Sandusky over the first time, the school's prestige would have taken a hit. (A side note - think about it... if he had turned him over the first time, what would people be saying about Paterno now? He would be basically a god! A leader on and off the field in morality). With the small hit of prestige, recruiting would dampen and all of that - but that is all indirect and suppository. In fact, if Paterno had turned Sandusky over, there would be NO NCAA violations and the school would have been a powerhouse still.

The opposing point of view would say that the culture of Penn State revolved around football in spite of everything else and THAT is something which should be punished. Unfortunately, that's not how the NCAA or the legal system works, but in terms of pure revenge, it might be just.

Let's be clear about this: Any proposed punishments to the PSU football program have nothing to do with "changing the culture" or "punishing the program" or "holding them responsible." The people involved are gone. Literally dead, in one case; going to prison for the rest of his life, in another; and blacklisted from any responsible position in any respectable university in others.

The culture is in the process of getting gutted--PSU just paid millions for the Freeh report and deliberately published it to the world. They are reforming.

The program, built on Joe Paterno, is a shambles, and his reputation is permanently destroyed.

Proposed punishments to the PSU program will have one, and only one purpose. To act as a deterrent against corrupt behavior in other ultra-powerful, insular athletic departments.

People are kidding themselves if they think over-powerful athletic staff and university administrators making selfish decisions and ignoring due diligence for the benefit of a football program that draws 100,000 people to one place 7 Saturdays every fall is a problem limited to State College. There is wrong-doing everywhere; most of it isn't this bad, but it is widespread.

NCAA punishments, particularly in the past decade, have been focused as much at putting the fear of devastation into the minds of coaches and athletic directors as actually punishing programs for their own wrong-doing. Part of this is a function of the NCAA's extra-legal nature--there's nothing legally wrong with paying a 20-year-old thousands of dollars, and thus discovery of this sort of thing is hampered by the inability to subpoena. So what the NCAA does find is limited, and often only comes out when there are actual legal proceedings involved (see: Martin, Ed; Bush, Reggie; Ohio Tattoo University, The). So the NCAA comes down hard when it finds something.

The NCAA does not normally deal with this sort of issue. No direct competitive advantage was sought or obtained by the actions of the university, and as a consequence this would normally be out of their jurisdiction.

However, the motive appears to be at least partially to protect the football program, or at least the reputation of its coach. And the NCAA may decide that immoral behavior on behalf of such motives, whether covered by NCAA regulations or not, must be addressed. And anyone who considers acting with such motives (including people who believe in doing things "the right way") must know that to do so is to jeopardize that which they seek to protect.

Any punishment of Penn State is a deterrent against other programs making similar choices, and little else.

Actually, I believe that part of the punishment - whatever that may be - for PSU should very much involve changing the culture if for no other reason than to act as a deterrent to insular programs that have an inordinate influence in the actions of the school they represent. If any punishment is to be meaningful in the long run, then this has to be part of the example. It is easy to say they are reforming in that, thus far, they have done things that clearly needed to be done, but part of "reform" is making sure that the chances of such a thing happening again are as close to zero as possible.

For example, it seems clear to me that the Board Of Trustees has been squeamish about the notion of trying to being more directly involved in the decisions which affect day-to-day university operations. The considered reforms which would have given them significant oversight in the decisions of Spanier, Paterno and others and, after discussions with those people, decided never to vote on them. All the way up to this elected board, leadership failed this school, its football program, and far more importantly, the victims of Jerry Sandusky. Whoever is on this board has demonstrated that they should not be on it. A special election seems in order to me. Part of any punishment should be forcing the change as, to date, they have shown themselves to be unwilling to make it. I don't know how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania handles such elections though.

The NCAA punishment, when or if it comes, should focus on a similar issue, which is the lack of institutional control. Clearly, this existed at PSU, and not just with current staff, but obviously with former staff members who knowingly represented the school in the course of their duties with other organizations. In my interpretation of the NCAA, that is a clear violation of that Article and there is an excellent case. I don't know if they would go as far as the death penalty by themselves, but I tend to believe that part of the larger tragedy here is that football and the reputation of its coach became so important at Penn State that it took a backseat to more pressing, more human problems. I would entreat them to remove the conflicting priority if only to put sports in perspective for anyone who is in danger of going down this road, but again, I don't know if it comes to that given the historic lack of predictability in NCAA punishments.

I would say a similar thing for the Big Ten, I think. I would like to see the Big Ten take this on even if only to show that it means what it says when it comes to failing to comply to the standards set forth in the handbook. That doesn't mean kicking them out necessarily, but the conference should take this as a cue to be more involved with the schools. Inspired by an earlier thread, it may not be a bad idea for compliance with conference standards to be a part of coaching contracts, but of course that's ultimately the school's call.

One issue that I see here is that people talk about "punishing the program", but forget that some of the most powerful members of the program enabled the crimes, and any punishment will somehow affect the program, even if it is mere reputation (it should be more at PSU). By punishing these people, you punish the program in various ways. It seems unavoidable ultimately.

If anything, the punishment, at least in part, needs to involve the culture here and giving it perspective, which basically means that football at PSU - even if it continues without interruption - will not be unaltered, and indeed, other sports by extension will live with that altered reputation. There isn't much that I think one could do about that.

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

No punishment from the NCAA, no punishment from the B1G. Let the courts and legal system deal with the problems becuase these are criminal issues. People need to get off their high horse on this thing and let the proper groups dole out punishment.

I agree with this. The NCAA and B1G have the option to dissasociate ties with Penn State if they feel that's what they need to do, they're welcome to defend their image/message, but it is not their job to handle justice.

Why is it that everyone here has just taken it as assumed that the department of justice has failed? Why do we need extra instituions to come in and dole out more justice? Those criminally responsible will be dealt with in a court of law, and I'd imagine victims will soon go after Penn State as a whole in a civil lawsuit if they feel they played a part in this.

If a doctor breaks the law and negligently kills one of his patients, then he can have his license revoked and go to jail. Penn State has many more responsibilities than a physician, and is regulated by more bodies (DoE, NCAA, B1G et al). Therefore, each regulating body is entitled to extract its own pound of flesh. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

What's the analogy? A doctor has to meet certain criteria to keep practicing, and they need a license to practice in their field. Revoking a license isn't about doling out justice, it's to maintain quality in health care. That's not even comparable to an institution that deals with inter collegiate sports and other university relations. There's no by-laws about how employees of institutions abide by the law, and that's not the purpose of the NCAA or B1G in the first place. If they want to wash their hands of the Penn State situation, then fine, they're free to do that. But they're over stepping their bounds when they begin worrying about handling justice for legal issues.

So far Sandusky has been convicted of molesting children. Curley and Schultz have been charged with lying to a grand jury. If the NCAA decides to punish Penn State it won't be for those crimes.

A lot of other things were done wrong in the PSU athletic department. While many weren't crimes, some might have been NCAA violations. I'll wait to see what the NCAA charges PSU with, if anything, before assuming they're overstepping their bounds.

Penn State isn't walking away scot-free in this case. They have civil lawsuits pending against them for their internal failures and premesis liability, and McQuery plans to file a whistle-blower suit. Any response about the boundaries of the B1G and NCAA I have made have been about the hypothetical scenarios that this thread is based on.

The analogy is simple, multiple infractions against different codes governed by different regulating bodies. Each one gets to levy their punishment. I could have said a fork-truck driver working for Union Carbide dumps chemicals into a stream while smoking a joint. The point is, the EPA, the cops and OSHA all have punishments to give.

Those are government agencies with clearly defined jurisdictions to enforce compliance in this country. They're not over lapping instituions. If a worker gets injured and the company is found to be at fault the whole lot of the government doesn't come tear apart the company, OSHA deals with it, and the worker can file for restitution. So if you can put out an example that crosses into several different jurisdictions that doesn't really mean much here. What NCAA or B1G bylaws were violated? And what legal jurisdiction does the NCAA or B1G have?

Assuming that the NCAA has jurisdiction to punish Penn State, how can they not give them the death penalty for at least one year. If someone can find an instance where there was more of a loss of institutional control than this one, which lasted about 13 years, i'd like to know what it was.

If there is collateral damage, so what. Release recruits/players from their commitments and mpve on.

If the NCAA doesn't exercise its maximum penalty now, then when would it be appropriate?

I don't believe in the death penalty in NCAA sports. The only people that should get the "death penalty" (ie fired +show cause) are those directly involved. Don't punish the other athletic programs and local businesses that need the football program to sustain themselves. Give them a 5 year bowl ban and a reduction of 30 scholarships a year (55 schollie limit) for three years and subtract 10 from that for two more years (Year 4-65; Year 5 - 75). It will hurt the football program quite a bit, but not as much everyone else. The community has already suffered enough.

For a' that, an' a' that,
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gowd for a' that.

I'm okay with this and would be in favor of it. I also recognize it would relegate them to being a second-tier program for a long time, at least ten years. There would be a lot of empty seats and local business would suffer marginally, but not disastrously.

This seems about right and more than fair to PSU. Let's see if the NCAA has it in them.

Well, the victims and their families are certainly part of the community. And they've certainly suffered enough. I guarantee that if this happened to us under Bo, a majority of Michigan fans would be acting the same way. Doesn't mean the local businesses and residents should be hurting in their bank accounts. The fans' reactions and feelings are irrelevant.

For a' that, an' a' that,
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gowd for a' that.

We are pretty far down a tangent. I don't wish ill on anyone. But I also don't want to hinder rendering of justice, i.e., punishment of the institution based on how it will or will not inflict collateral damage.

Among with changes in leadership, compiance and oversight, they should take a year (2013) off from football They need to put the program in its proper perspective. While football should be fun for the fans, alumni and students, it shouldn't be the focus for their pride in the school. Penn State can show that it doesn't need football . It's up to them to act first and I think a move like this would require nothing further from the Big Ten or the NCAA but probation.

2) Big Ten

Right now, I don't want my school to have anything to do with Penn State athletics. I'm really glad they aren't on our football schedule this year. If they take strong steps to correct their institutional problems and show that they are willing to accept the consequences for many years of transgressions, fine. Then they deserve another chance. Otherwise, I'm voting to kick them out. To me, there is no other penalty the Big Ten should levy. I realize that may be inconvenient and may have some negative consequences for our football program, but those are poor reasons for not doing the right thing. Penn State can move on to the Big East or elsewhere and we can look for a replacement.

3) NCAA

Like the Big Ten, the NCAA is a member association. Considering that their mandate isn't so clear in this new territory, I think they should listen to their member schools for guidance. This isn't just a case for their enforcement arm. I expect them to let Penn State know, if only through unofficial channels, that they better take self-sanctions seriously or the calls for blood may carry the day. Assuming that's true, of course, which I hope it is.

I think the best outcome by far is to have Penn State take care of their own problems. At the moment I'm very skeptical that they have the leadership to make that happen. Anything else will be very messy and/or disappointing.

I think PSU's football program deserves the typical NCAA punishments handed out for programs that cover up crimes: probation, bowl ban, and scholarship reductions. For how long and how many? I don't know.

I have an idea that, although farfetched, I'd like to see happen on a grass-roots level.

The non-PSU fans (and even those PSU fans that feel its appropriate) should SHUN PSU football. When they come to town to play your team, boycott the game en masse. Hold a press conference and tell the world that your fanbase is making a statement against the horrors that went on within the PSU football program.

Obviously, it will never happen -- too much money lost for your own program, and too many people wouldn't go along with it . But could you imagine what kind of statement a completely EMPTY Camp Randal Stadium would make about what the University of WIsconsin students, alums, and fans think about what went on at PSU? Now do that six or so times over the season. Do the same thing as the visiting team, and publicize it, and you have a pretty strong statement.

Again, not really a punishment -- let the courts and NCAA do their thing -- but I think it would be a great way to shame PSU, and honor the victims.

Sing to the colors that float in the light;
Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue!

The BIG is a brand founded on being leaders and legends. Do I need to go any further with this logic. I mean we are now know for being the conference that has PSU in it. Did they as both an academic institution and athletic department act as a leader and legend? No. The BIG, i.e a corporation(s) want max return on their dollar and roi tactically and strategically. Can that be achieved with PSU remaining in the conference?

This is said in the context of how they, Delany, prezis and ncaa may view it in simplistic terms. Everyone will feel uneasy if they get the boot or the death penalty or perhaps outrage if very little happens to them. It's lose lose. Delaney likes win win scenarios just like everyone else. If they get the boot they might completely collapse as a U. Does the BIG want that on their cv?

You can't punish Penn State for what a few people did. I'm all for revenue to go to charity. Set that up for 5-10 years that would be a punishment. The whole 1year ban is just silly. If it was Ohio the NCAA wouldnt do anything so think on that.

i used to be a believer of don't punish many for the actions of a few, but i just can't find a reason to uphold that belief anymore. if we uphold it, then sanctions at osu and usc are essentially void.

its an unfair deal to the players at psu, but life isn't fair. life will happily kick you in the balls twice before you even know what's going on. i do believe, though, that if there is a death penalty, the athletes should be allowed to transfer without losing a year.

Attention campers. Lunch is cancelled due to lack of hustle. Deal with it.

A lot of large institutions purposely (or not so purposely) set themselves up so that there is a diffusion of responsibility. It's total bullshit.

If something goes wrong, and no one can be held responsible, then those at the top ought to take the blame.

Now, I'm not saying this as a blanket statement, but for the most part, if your program is out of control, but the blame can't be placed on any one guy, then the head coach, and/or the AD have to step up to the plate and take the blame.

By the way, a milder alternative to this that I think could work is a future bowl ban that doesn't carry with it the full season ban. Let's say they're banned from postseason play in 2017 and 2018. The same arguments that I made above apply (regarding the benefits for that kind of punishment), but it isn't quite as hard a punch to the crotch as the full season ban.

The problem with these far off punishments is that the NCAA would need the will to impose it and also the will to uphold it through the years in the face of inevitable appeals. A few years down the road, PSU will claim that they have suffered enough and who knows what would happen?

The NCAA likes to match up its punishments to the offense. We got a 2 to 1 reduction in practice time and a reduced staff. That made sense. You weren't trying to here and maybe the NCAA won't either, but I think they should.

The other problem with these future punishments is that they have a very low chance of ever being pursued, and if they are pursued, essentially zero chance that they would be successfully implemented. It's not just the objection Mr. Miggle makes, it's also that postponing a punishment for the express purpose of increasing its punitive value is antithetical to our customs and laws. The only time I can think of punishments being delayed in our legal system is to show some leniency to the perp. for various reasons.

I negged the OP because I would think the first hurdle for any proposed punishment of PSU should be that it be based in reality (that is, at least some reasonable hope that it would be possible, even under the most ideal conditions, to be implemented) and the OP fails on that account.

If you feel any punishment this coming season will be too lenient, then propose tougher or longer punishment.

The reason to postpone the punishment wouldn't be to "increase its punitive value." It would be to prevent it from falling disproportionately upon current players who were in no way responsible for the wrongdoing and couldn't have seen this coming.

We're even now. But wait until I create a sockpuppet account and start praising and upvoting myself, then we'll see who's even! :)

I may have conveniently overlooked your points 2 and 3, but point 1 sure seems to have a healthy dose of increasing the punitive damage included. Even assuming there is no extra punitive intent in your proposed punishment of PSU, I still think there are serious problems with postponing a punishment for 6 years. Even taking for granted that in our culture and legal system punishment is sometimes postponed to allow guilty parties to complete business of some sort before serving a sentence, I can't think of a single example where the punishment is deliberately put off for 6 years. If you or anyone else can find just one example where the US legal system has allowed postponing a punishment (other than because of appeals) for over three years (half the length of time you propose), I'll change my vote to an upvote. Just ask OMGshirtless. He knows how valuable those upvotes are! They don't just grow on trees you know! And mine will be a shiny new upvote--not some musty upvote that's been mouldering away for years on some unused partition of my harddrive.

How do you match punishments to this offense? That's the problem. It's really hard to figure out how to do that. If you exceed practice time limits, then you give the NCAA a guide for how to punish you. That's definitely not the case here.

I don't think I agree with your first paragraph, but I guess I don't know enough about it. Your thinking is that the NCAA could sustain appeals for a punishment that comes a year or two down the road but not one that comes a few years down the road? I'm not sure I buy that. Plus, if Penn State can demonstrate along the way that they've been adequately punished, then shouldn't we be satisfied with that even if the originally planned punishment never materializes?

I think the death penalty does fit. Short of that, a ban on home games for a couple of years could too.

Actually I think there are a lot of problems with your far off punishment plan. I wasn't thinking so much about the NCAA handling formal appeals as getting ground down by five years of whining. There's some truth behind the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. The arguments behind shutting down PSU's program now will be a lot less compelling in two or three years assuming they run it more or less like any other school in the interim. Why punish them in 2018 will be a very reasonable argument, whether they had actually already suffered or not. We'd almost certainly see the death penalty transformed into probation.

Your attempt to completely spare innocents in the line of fire is laudable, but I fear it's just impractical. You also have to consider the precedent you would be setting for any penalties that affect anyone beyond the individual offenders. For example, was it really fair to UM's younger players to have their practice time curtailed? It could have impacted their development.

The NCAA lets players freely transfer when they levy severe penalties. That's fair and it's probably the best they can do.

The problem we are not considering here - to further the war analogy - is the collateral damage. To punish current and future students because past students were unthinkably abused is illogical. No one should suffer the consequences except the guilty, and no one should benefit from the punishment except the victims and those similarly victimized. A huge and painful monetary punishment to the athletic department and administration is appropriately painful. Making sure the money goes toward victims and prevention of this type of abuse ensures that some good comes of a horrible situation rather than piling on wrongs that impact other kids.

I initially was for the death penalty, but I agree, it doesn't punish anyone involved, only the innocent. I think vacating all wins since 1998 or 2001, and pulling down JoePa's statue is sufficient. It punishes Joe, and puts a knife in the cult of personality, without taking away from the good things the man did. Also bar him from any hall of fame publicly, like Pete Rose. If that's not enough, dock PSU 10 scholarships for 14 years, with the money being used to establish a permanent sex abuse professor chair in the sociology dept, and ban PSU from having a coach for more than 10 years tenure. That will quell the culture a bit.

A few people at penn state sucked. Let it be a lesson to everyone, that some things are more important than anything you will ever do. That said, this could of as easily as happened at umich than penn state.

If we want to focus on preventing the crime and culture, let them play. Every game will start with the statue, as a reminder of what went fucking wrong. Best reminder there can be.

Kids first. Everything else be damned. What was done by the President, AD, Coach and Defensive Coordinator to kids in the name of Penn State Football makes the prospect of watching that uniform and football played in it repulsive.

What honor is there in playing football there this year? Is that going to help the parents of those kids feel better? (They are not kids anymore for the most part are they.) Will those victims think about the penetration and humiliation in a better light knowing that PSU chose to allow it - with all due entendre.

What are you going to get out of watching PSU this year that the kids and families who suffered here can share? Will it make them better? Could it perhaps in a totally backward way make them worse? What do you want to say to them? We don't need a civil court for this sort of direction or healing.

Kids first. No football. In my mind not for 4 years. All athletes transfer without regard to limits to any school that is not under penalty or they can stay and finish their degree as they so please.

PSU can start again when all ties to the previous coach are broken. There is no way to do that without doing that.

If that statue stays up through Sept 1... I will not watch a down this year of any football. Nor will I log onto this site or follow this game anymore until it is taken down. Whether it is taken down or not I will go to great lengths not watch PSU football at all... for quite a while. Not a huge loss for anyone but I will not do it. I'll spend that time with my family. Football does not mean anything if you can't put kids first.

No more threads about this please. There are good people who will, I hope, at the least, take that statue down and set this right. I can only hope.

"When it got down to the nitty gritty, we pounded it in there the old fashioned way and... um ... I like that."

In punishing Penn State, the problem is that the extreme punishments seem too harsh, the lesser punishments seem too light, and the middle ground that solves the problems of the other two is hard to find.

The easiest thing to do is to say give them the death penalty, kick them out of the Big Ten, etc. I certainly see the arguments to do so. I've advanced those arguments. Shit, not that this matters, but when I started my NCAA13 dynasty, I kicked Penn State out of the Big Ten. I really think the presidents should consider it, but I doubt they have the balls to do it.

But I also see the other side: that everyone involved with the scandal is dead, in jail, or on their way to jail. Why punish Adam Brenneman and Bill O'Brien for what Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno did? I think a huge fine to be paid to the NCAA/Big Ten to set up a fund for victims all over the country (not just the Sandusky victims, because believe me, they're going to be getting their ounce of gold from PSU). The problem is that the sycophantic remaining worshippers of St. Joe Paterno, who may be a vocal minority for all we know, will kick off a fundraising drive to make up the difference. Is it much of a punishment then? The problem here is that football was king at PSU, and this will somehow be proven to be true once again. Culture change? I don't think so.

I lean towards the death penalty/ejection, starting in 2013 or 14, but it wouldn't be without some regret that the real people who will pay for the sins of the fathers will be their sons.